[william clark]

The way that the system has become corrupted is simple. The right to a defense is to ensure that no one is convicted unjustly, which is where the lawyer's duty lies. His duty is not to win, yet that's the way it's become. The other side of the coin is the OJ-jury syndrome, where one's personal agenda becomes more important than following the law. I think a lot of jurors look for "reasonable doubt" just so they can feel smarter than the state (as represented by the prosecution).

[Stone Mountain]

The right to a defense is to ensure that no one is convicted unjustly, which is where the lawyer's duty lies.

The defense lawyer's duty is to defend his client to the best of his ability under the law.

I think a lot of jurors look for "reasonable doubt" just so they can feel smarter than the state (as represented by the prosecution).

I agree with this, but it is a separate issue. If the defense lawyer believes that jurors will look for reasonable doubt, it is his duty to try to provide it. Anything less would be malpractice.

[SWake]

I think a lot of jurors look for "reasonable doubt" just so they can feel smarter than the state (as represented by the prosecution).

I had a conversation with a coworker once who said that it would be impossible for any prosecutor to prove a case "beyond a reasonable doubt" to him. I could not come up with a scenario where he would admit that there was not reasonable doubt. I just don't understand some people.